United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019-08-23
42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)
Case and law context
Role: applied; posture: civil; mother listed on Hawai'i's child abuse registry in 2007 without notice sued the State, DHS and officials under § 1983 (due process) in July 2015; district court raised limitations sua sponte and granted summary judgment for defendants as untimely; CA9 affirmed; result: claimant-lost; claim:
Uncertainty
Element statute-of-limitations: route: the contested sub-question is ACCRUAL (discovery rule, continuing violation, facial-challenge exception); the menu has only borrowed-state-period and relation-back
Misfit
None recorded
B · Case × element grid
Top-level elements follow claim order in panels of up to six elements. Case rows repeat across panels. Every recorded block retains its holding and basis; multiple blocks are not merged into a case-level verdict. ✓ satisfied · ✗ not satisfied · ○ not reached · · not addressed. Muted blocks are not counted. Sub-element evidence remains on case and element pages.
Elements 1–6 of 20
| Case | Suable "person" (natural person in individual capacity, official in official capacity for prospective relief, or municipality; excludes States) | Action taken "under color of" state, territorial, or D.C. law | Deprivation of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution and laws | Personal involvement / causal connection ("subjects, or causes to be subjected") | Damages remedy (legacy CASE id; not a prerequisite for prospective relief) | Qualified immunity for government officials sued in individual capacity (Harlow v. Fitzgerald; Pearson v. Callahan) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bird v. Hawaii — 935 F.3d 738 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 7–12 of 20
| Case | Common-law absolute immunity (judicial, prosecutorial, legislative, witness functions) | Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity bar (official-capacity damages / retrospective relief) | Preiser / Heck v. Humphrey favorable-termination and habeas-exclusivity bar | Borrowed state personal-injury statute of limitations (42 U.S.C. § 1988; Wilson v. Garcia; Owens v. Okure) | Issue preclusion / collateral estoppel from prior state criminal or civil judgment (Allen v. McCurry) | Judicial standing prerequisite, separate from damages remedy |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bird v. Hawaii — 935 F.3d 738 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 13–18 of 20
| Case | Statutory bar on injunctive relief against a judicial officer acting in a judicial capacity (1996 amendment) | Municipal policy or custom as moving force (Monell v. Department of Social Services) | District of Columbia exclusive Act of Congress inclusion clause (1979 amendment) | Rejected extra element: separate proof of "abuse of governmental power" (Collins v. City of Harker Heights) | Federal action / Fifth Amendment claim (outside § 1983 state-law scope) | Collateral-order appellate jurisdiction over interlocutory qualified-immunity denials (Mitchell v. Forsyth; Johnson v. Jones) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bird v. Hawaii — 935 F.3d 738 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Elements 19–20 of 20
| Case | Appellate preservation / forfeiture of issue not raised in district court | Section 1983 malicious prosecution claim (Fourth Amendment / procedural due process) |
|---|---|---|
| Bird v. Hawaii — 935 F.3d 738 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | · not addressed | · not addressed |
Instances and excluded annotation blocks
| Case | Element | Holding and scope | Pattern | Exact source quotations |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bird v. Hawaii — 935 F.3d 738 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — not reached (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Deprivation of Fourteenth Amendment Procedural Due Process (protected liberty/property interest + inadequate process) | not_reached Excluded from merits counts applied / merits party: Courtney Bird; count: procedural due process challenge to listing on the Central Child Abuse Registry without notice or hearing; subject: party=Courtney Bird; count=procedural due process challenge to listing on the Central Child Abuse Registry without notice or hearing Merits of the due process claim not reached by the per curiam opinion because the action was time-barred (Judge Bybee's concurrence would find a plain due process violation; not controlling). | Unspecified route | No source quotation recorded for this block. |
| Bird v. Hawaii — 935 F.3d 738 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 — satisfied · law (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md)) | Borrowed state personal-injury statute of limitations (42 U.S.C. § 1988; Wilson v. Garcia; Owens v. Okure) | satisfied Counted merits instance applied / merits basis: law; party: State of Hawai'i, its Department of Human Services and state officials; count: procedural due process challenge to listing on the Central Child Abuse Registry without notice or hearing; theory: federal discovery rule of accrual; no exception for facial challenges to an ongoing scheme; continuing-violations doctrine inapplicable to an individualized claim; subject: party=State of Hawai'i, its Department of Human Services and state officials; count=procedural due process challenge to listing on the Central Child Abuse Registry without notice or hearing; theory=federal discovery rule of accrual; no exception for facial challenges to an ongoing scheme; continuing-violations doctrine inapplicable to an individualized claim Section 1983 borrows Hawai'i's two-year personal-injury period; accrual is governed by the federal discovery rule; the panel declines to exempt facial challenges to an ongoing statutory scheme and holds the continuing-violations doctrine inapplicable to an individualized due process claim. | registry listing discovered in 2012, suit threatened in May 2013, complaint filed July 2015 under a two-year borrowed period; ongoing effects of the listing are not a continuing violation | In a letter dated May 14, 2013, Bird's attorney indicated to DHS that Bird would "proceed with litigation" if she was not removed from the registry.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0738-01; Unicode character offsets [11588:11736] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a1b6fa995dfd9828c40aad68ff423848239a7e998a4107824207d521b499713a.Bird did not file suit, however, until July 20, 2015-more than two years after her extensive communications with DHS and previous threat to sue.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0738-01; Unicode character offsets [999:1143] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a1b6fa995dfd9828c40aad68ff423848239a7e998a4107824207d521b499713a.The only instance Bird has identified where she sought and was denied a post-deprivation hearing occurred prior to May 2013.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0738-01; Unicode character offsets [33690:33814] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a1b6fa995dfd9828c40aad68ff423848239a7e998a4107824207d521b499713a.Nevertheless, because DHS did not conclude that its initial assessment was "frivolous or in bad faith," DHS took no action and Bird remained on the CCAR as a "confirmed" child abuser.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0738-01; Unicode character offsets [8453:8636] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a1b6fa995dfd9828c40aad68ff423848239a7e998a4107824207d521b499713a.Although Bird's injuries resulting from the 2007 act of placing her on the CCAR continue to the present day, continuing effect is insufficient to constitute a continuing violation.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0738-01; Unicode character offsets [32523:32703] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a1b6fa995dfd9828c40aad68ff423848239a7e998a4107824207d521b499713a.Because Bird's complaint is not subject to any exception from the normal discovery rule of accrual, we agree that Bird's claim accrued no later than May 2013, when Bird threatened to sue DHS if she was not removed from the CCAR.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0738-01; Unicode character offsets [1290:1518] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a1b6fa995dfd9828c40aad68ff423848239a7e998a4107824207d521b499713a.Accordingly, her suit, filed in July 2015, was outside the two-year statute of limitations.Source: docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0738-01; Unicode character offsets [34122:34213] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a1b6fa995dfd9828c40aad68ff423848239a7e998a4107824207d521b499713a. |
Court interpretations recorded from this case
interpretation
Because Bird's complaint is not subject to any exception from the normal discovery rule of accrual, we agree that Bird's claim accrued no later than May 2013, when Bird threatened to sue DHS if she was not removed from the CCAR.
Bird v. Hawaii — 935 F.3d 738 (2019) · United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2019 (42usc1983: author: Flash1 · QA: FIX (Fable, neov2/cases/TRIAGE-Flash.md))
Because Bird's complaint is not subject to any exception from the normal discovery rule of accrual, we agree that Bird's claim accrued no later than May 2013, when Bird threatened to sue DHS if she was not removed from the CCAR.Source:
docroot/ir/caselaw/f3d_935.jsonl#/f3d/935/0738-01; Unicode character offsets [1290:1518] (end exclusive); SHA-256 a1b6fa995dfd9828c40aad68ff423848239a7e998a4107824207d521b499713a.Length of limitations period and tolling are borrowed from state residual personal-injury law (Owens v. Okure, 488 U.S. 235 (1989)), while accrual date is governed by federal law (Wallace v. Kato; Reed v. Goertz).